Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 19:39, 28 January 2013 [1].

List of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists edit

List of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s):  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Billboard Social 50 is a popularity chart that ranks the most active musical acts on the world's leading social networking services. Its data, published by Billboard magazine and compiled by Next Big Sound, is based collectively on each act's weekly additions of friends, fans and followers, along with artist website views and song plays.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comments
  • an "important response" to "our changing times" - I'd change this to simply an "important response [to] our changing times", looks cleaner
  • in November 2012 was later expanded - the word "later" is redundant here
  • The first act to reach number-one - shouldn't be a hyphen in "number-one"
  • It addition, he also - firstly, spot the typo, and secondly, you don't need to state both "in addition" and "also", as they mean the same thing
Think that's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done everything, but I'm unsure about the whole hyphen in "number-one" thing. I see it written as both "number one" and "number-one", the former often being used for the title.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let people weigh in about how they think it should be, as it effects the whole article, really.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Number one" should take a hyphen when used as an adjective (eg "the number-one song" but not when used as a noun (eg "he reached number one") -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OH! Alright, that makes sense! Changed.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fresh comment :-)
  • Just noticed another one - you can't start a sentence with "five of which". Either combine it with the previous sentence or change it to "five of these"/"five of these artists" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had five of the acts before (why you didn't notice anything wrong), and Hahc below told me to change it to which. I've corrected it now.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Hahc21
Resolved comments from — ΛΧΣ21 00:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*"world's leading social networking services" According to who?
  • "and song plays" streaming data would sound better for this, based on their own Billboard On-Demand Songs chart: "on-demand play request and plays from unlimited listener-controlled radio channels on leading music subscription services"
  • " Five of the acts" --> "Five of which"
  • Awful picture, but meh.
  • Both Billboard and Nielsel Business media should be wikilinked on their first appearance in the references.
  • Table is missing row scopes.
  • That's all. — ΛΧΣ21 00:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comments

  • "posthumously" is a dab link.
  • Ref col doesn't need to be sortable.
  • The "mid-table headings" shouldn't sort.
  • "scope="row"| Selena Gomez" fix that.
  • And "scope="row"| Justin Bieber"
  • "Reached number-one" doesn't sort correctly.
  • Nor does consecutive weeks. (I guess these are both a result of that "mid-table heading" rowspan naughtiness.
  • Do you really need those four see also's since you have a template which links to the appropriate "social" pages?

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe all the issues have been addressed. Except: There's nothing to actually be done about the mid-table headings. I saw in several other featured lists that they also go like that. And as for the template, all of the articles in there were merged to this article, and the template is currently at TfD. It's going to be deleted, so I'll just remove it now.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the moving mid-table headings should either stay static or be removed altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments My main concern with this list is the lack of third-party references – with the exception of the Mashable link, the only source cited is Billboard, the publisher of the chart. Has there been any other commentary from sources unconnected with the Social 50? Google News's archives throw up a few non-Billboard sources – it might be worth having a look through them to see if the lead can be beefed up in any way, as, by my count, it currently comes to about 1580 characters, which would just barely be enough to get it through even DYK.
Sorry but I fail to see why the DYK reference here. The lead should meet only the FLC criteria, even if it's barely long enough to be at DYK. This list is of a very specific topic wich has not been widely discussed by the media and has no big impact on the music scene. — ΛΧΣ21 04:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Social 50's official webpage states that it lists "the most active artists on the world's leading social networking sites", rather than "acts". Could the list be renamed to reflect this?
  • Originally, that is what the name of the titles were under before I touched them (I merged 4 articles together to create this one). I noticed that, yes. BUT, an artist generally refers to one person, and bands have also been included in the chart. So I think that using act is a much better choice and more accurate. But if you think that it should remain how Billboard states it, I'll change it.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always heard/used the term to refer to either individuals or groups. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's inaccurate. The dictionary states that an artist is "a person who works in one of the performing arts, as an actor, musician, or singer". You don't say "One Direction is a British artist", or "The Black Eyed Peas are American artists".  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Billboard and Rolling Stone use "artists". Billboard's top new artist of 2012 was One Direction. The artist of the day on Rolling Stone is Yo La Tengo. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed the article to use "artist" instead of "act".  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't necessarily link "Popularity chart" to Record chart, as that particular article doesn't actually discuss popularity charts at all, or even tell the reader what they are.
  • Might be worth linking "posthumously" to its associated Wiktionary page, i.e. [[wiktionary:posthumously|posthumously]].
  • Bieber, Rivera, Perry, Gomex and Swift need to sort under their surname.
  • Similarly, The Black Eyes Peas needs to sort under B.
  • Ref -> Ref.

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe that, when referring to the highest position on a chart, it's "number one" rather than "number-one".
  • In the lead?
  • Yeah. The header of the second column too. Also might be worth moving the image of Rihanna to underneath the "Number-one artists" header, so that the Edit link isn't displaced. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support (with final comments) This list has improved considerably over the last week, and now meets the criteria by my estimation. Just a few final points:

Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • As for the references, I understand what you mean, but as you say yourself, there's only a few non-Billboard reports. I think it is best to keep it consistent. And additionally, most chart lists use the same references. And as for the lead, I'd normally agree, but since this is a list of every act that has hit number one, it will be updated weekly, which will cause some things in the lead to change. At the moment, the lead covers the most important things about the chart as of today.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right that most chart lists just use the same source provider, but the ones that are featured lists are based on charts that have (or should have) coverage in third-party sources. These references shoud be added to this list or the article for Billboard Social 50 (although the two in terms of their leads aren't much different as they stand right now). --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me
  • That's not accurate. There is no difference between the non-FL status chart lists and the FL-status chart lists except for the fact that they went through the the FLC process. All the references are the same. I'd like you to show me a featured article that replies fully on third-party sources, please. As for the Billboard Social 50 article, I'm not sure what this has to do with this FLC?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mention the Social 50 article because it has no third-party sources which give an indication to this chart's notability much less any significance of being number one on this chart. If the chart itself isn't notable (I'm not saying it isn't, it's just lacking the coverage to say that it is), what makes being number one on this chart notable? According to criteria 3 for featured lists, the list must meet all of the requirements for stand-alone lists including notability requirements. Per WP:NOTESAL, "a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". What evidence is there that anyone cares who is number one on the Social 50? That's what is keeping this from being a featured list in my eyes. There seemed to be a lot of coverage when the chart was introduced and Rihanna being the first to top it ([2]), so incorporate some of those and you'll have something. Otherwise, the list is very well done and laid out and far superior to what existed before. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added additional sources to the lead of the article.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm satisfied, so I'll leave it to those who know better to give this a final endorsement. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)
*Comments from Crisco 1492
  • Having the list cited to the chart itself is fine, although I'd expect to see third party coverage in the lede at least.
  • Is it fine how it is now? What I mean is, I can't exactly cite the amount of weeks, for example, someone was atop the chart.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should have a way of indicating that certain artists topped the chart more than once (i.e. Justin Bieber is on there at least 8 times, but no indication that he is a repeat leader
  • Well, it does state he appeared for 24 straight weeks, and he also had appeared for 53 weeks overall. Do you have a suggestion?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth including an image of Rihanna. There are some pretty good ones
  • Oh, that's right! I was going to add more images, but it split my mind. I'll look for a good one to add and add it to the article.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gave a copyedit, be sure to double check. Prose looks acceptable to me now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good now, happy to support this nom on prose and images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The list looks good and satisfies my standards. Good job! — Tomíca(T2ME) 09:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This is a great list which is of notable relevance in social media. It's well organized, straight forward and easy to read. Well done. Arre 16:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Billboard_Social_50_number-one_artists&oldid=1079643655"